Leveraging the Multidisciplinary Tumor Board for Dissemination of Evidence-Based Recommendations on the Staging and Treatment of Gastric Cancer: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Compliance with evidence-based treatment guidelines for gastric cancer across the United States is poor. This pilot study aimed to create and evaluate a change package for disseminating information on the staging and treatment of gastric cancer during multidisciplinary tumor boards and for identifying barriers to implementation. METHODS: The change package included a 10-min video, a brief knowledge assessment, and a discussion guide. Commission on Cancer-accredited sites that perform gastrectomy were invited to participate. Participants completed the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale (range, 12-60) and scales to measure the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness (score range, 4-20). Semi-structured interviews were conducted to further define inner and outer setting barriers. RESULTS: Seven centers participated in the study. A total of 74 participants completed the pre-video knowledge assessment, and 55 participants completed the post-video assessment. The recommendations found to be most controversial were separate staging laparoscopy and modified D2 lymphadenectomy. Sum scores were calculated for acceptability (mean, 17.43 ± 2.51) appropriateness (mean, 16.86 ± 3.24), and feasibility (mean, 16.14 ± 3.07) of the change package. The ORIC scores (mean, 46.57 ± 8.22) correlated with responses to the open-ended questions. The key barriers identified were patient volume, skills in the procedures, and attitudes and beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: The change package was moderately to highly feasible, appropriate, and acceptable. The activity identified specific recommendations for gastric cancer care that are considered controversial and local barriers to implementation. Future efforts could focus on building skills and knowledge as well as the more difficult issue of attitudes and beliefs.

"Closing the loop": a mixed-methods study about resident learning from outcome feedback after patient handoffs.

Background Learning patient outcomes is recognized as crucial for ongoing refinement of clinical decision-making, but is often difficult in fragmented care with frequent handoffs. Data on resident habits of seeking outcome feedback after handoffs are lacking. Methods We performed a mixed-methods study including (1) an analysis of chart re-access rates after handoffs performed using access logs of the electronic health record (EHR); and (2) a web-based survey sent to internal medicine (IM) and emergency medicine (EM) residents about their habits of and barriers to learning the outcomes of patients after they have handed them off to other teams. Results Residents on ward rotations were often able to re-access charts of patients after handoffs, but those on EM or night admitting rotations did so <5% of the time. Among residents surveyed, only a minority stated that they frequently find out the outcomes of patients they have handed off, although learning outcomes was important to both their education and job satisfaction. Most were not satisfied with current systems of learning outcomes of patients after handoffs, citing too little time and lack of reliable patient tracking systems as the main barriers. Conclusions Despite perceived importance of learning outcomes after handoffs, residents cite difficulty with obtaining such information. Systematically providing feedback on patient outcomes would meet a recognized need among physicians in training.

Clinical criteria to screen for inpatient diagnostic errors: a scoping review.

Diagnostic errors are common and costly, but difficult to detect. "Trigger" tools have promise to facilitate detection, but have not been applied specifically for inpatient diagnostic error. We performed a scoping review to collate all individual "trigger" criteria that have been developed or validated that may indicate that an inpatient diagnostic error has occurred. We searched three databases and screened 8568 titles and abstracts to ultimately include 33 articles. We also developed a conceptual framework of diagnostic error outcomes using real clinical scenarios, and used it to categorize the extracted criteria. Of the multiple criteria we found related to inpatient diagnostic error and amenable to automated detection, the most common were death, transfer to a higher level of care, arrest or "code", and prolonged length of hospital stay. Several others, such as abrupt stoppage of multiple medications or change in procedure, may also be useful. Validation for general adverse event detection was done in 15 studies, but only one performed validation for diagnostic error specifically. Automated detection was used in only two studies. These criteria may be useful for developing diagnostic error detection tools.

Understanding data requirements of retrospective studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Usage of data from electronic health records (EHRs) in clinical research is increasing, but there is little empirical knowledge of the data needed to support multiple types of research these sources support. This study seeks to characterize the types and patterns of data usage from EHRs for clinical research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the data requirements of over 100 retrospective studies by mapping the selection criteria and study variables to data elements of two standard data dictionaries, one from the healthcare domain and the other from the clinical research domain. We also contacted study authors to validate our results. RESULTS: The majority of variables mapped to one or to both of the two dictionaries. Studies used an average of 4.46 (range 1-12) data element types in the selection criteria and 6.44 (range 1-15) in the study variables. The most frequently used items (e.g., procedure, condition, medication) are often available in coded form in EHRs. Study criteria were frequently complex, with 49 of 104 studies involving relationships between data elements and 22 of the studies using aggregate operations for data variables. Author responses supported these findings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The high proportion of mapped data elements demonstrates the significant potential for clinical data warehousing to facilitate clinical research. Unmapped data elements illustrate the difficulty in developing a complete data dictionary.